radcon

I grew up in a house that looks like the first picture in the article ("An open-concept house in Massachusetts in 2005"). To me it always felt more like a hotel than a home, and the way sound traveled was horrible. You couldn't watch TV or talk in the family room at any reasonable volume without disturbing whoever was trying to sleep. It also seemed like a ridiculous waste of space. Instead of those high ceilings we could've had 2-3 more rooms.

There was also a constant battle between the family room and the living room, which housed the piano. The person watching TV would turn up the volume to hear over the piano, then the person playing piano would play a little louder so they could hear over the TV, and this would continue until both were shouting at each other.

Open concept homes look great in pictures but they're terrible to live in, imo.

On that note, does it make a difference that they're collectively refusing work rather than collectively setting prices? Uber and Lyft are still the ones actually setting the price.

In the end I don't think it will matter, Uber and Lyft could probably code around this pretty easily if it started to affect their bottom line. When they see 100+ drivers in the same place go offline within X seconds of each other, it's a pretty clear indication that there's coordinated action taking place. They probably have enough data from drivers' phones to see that they're sitting still waiting to go back online.

I just hope they don't decide to make an example out of these drivers by banning them...

Average starting salary for CS undergrads today is $57,000. He did say "entry level dev gig".

If you live alone in a major city, have student loans, and don't have great healthcare benefits from your employer, you'd be lucky to save much of anything on that salary. Banking $10k is a pipe dream.

> we work in software, where socking away your first ten thousand dollars happens automatically after landing an entry level dev gig, provided you don't go out of your way to blow your entire outlandish salary on silly possessions.

This is shockingly out of touch with reality, just like PG's original tweet.

There are plenty of people with CS degrees who can't find a job, and plenty more who have jobs that barely pay enough to cover their expenses.

Spend some time reading through something like the CSCareerQuestions subreddit if you want to get a glimpse of life outside your bubble.

This seems like it could also torpedo their Contractor vs. Employee argument.

Contractors get to set rates, employees don't. So you can't say they're contractors AND accuse them of committing fraud when they try to set their own rates.

Now if only someone would develop an app that does this for entire cities. The app could be their version of a union.

> but the point is that the processed diet drives more calorie consumption

My main gripe with this line of argument is that people rarely take price into account. It's pretty expensive to eat 2,000 calories of fresh food vs. 2,000 calories of junk food. I don't think it's some intrinsic quality of the food that's causing people to gain weight. I think many people who struggle with weight will eat as much as their money can get them, and your dollar goes a lot farther when you're buying junk food.

I also think we have a serious affordability problem when it comes to things like fruits, vegetables, lean meat, etc. People say fruit is cheap and sure, you might be able to get an Apple for $1, but that doesn't get you many calories. You need to fill out your diet with a lot of stuff like rice and beans if you're trying to eat cheap AND healthy. It's even worse if you look at prepared food, e.g. $11 for a 400 calorie salad at Panera. Assuming all your calories come at the same cost, you're spending $1,600 per month on food.

A fresh salad shouldn't be a luxury that only the rich can afford, but that seems to be the current state of affairs.

> aside from the knockoffs

They're essentially the same problem since inventory can get mixed together. You could have fake Nike shoes from a 3rd party seller mixed in with Amazon's Nike inventory.

Even 3rd party sellers complain about having their inventory tainted by other 3rd party sellers who send in counterfeits.

And a significant portion of those 40% are spamming all of their competitors with fake negative reviews and/or false infringement claims to get their listings buried or removed. Both of those tactics are surprisingly effective and you can find many stories of people's businesses being ruined (or held ransom) by them.

Fulfillment by Amazon was a decent idea, but it's time for it to go the same way as the Dash button and Amazon pop-up stores.

Using pictures of starving children as props to collect our personal information is a new low for them. I can't believe this made it through any sort of approval process.

> Because what people (women and men) are buying is aspiration wrapped in dead plant fibers.

I suppose it's possible that there's a man out there somewhere who thinks like this, but I've never met him and this is the first time I've heard of him.

If anything, most men probably prefer the opposite -- clothing that hasn't been worn by some obnoxious socialite.

Whether or not the uninformed masses care is a pretty poor measure of a problem's importance.

But I'm sure they'll care when they're arbitrarily banned, or when someone they agree with is banned.

> They have no obligation to allow all speech.

Their legal obligation is one thing, their moral/ethical obligations are another. So are you technically right? Yes. But are you completely overlooking the real problem here? Also yes.

Allowing these platforms to silence anyone at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason is giving them an absurd amount of power. The least we could do is force them to be transparent - give us a list of who they've banned and exactly why they were banned so we can make informed decisions about supporting those platforms.

As it stands, we have no way of knowing if these bans were arbitrary or justified. And since we depend on private companies for so many fundamental aspects of our lives, it only makes sense that the obligation to protect fundamental rights should also extend to those companies.

Even the most diehard Star Citizen supporters will readily admit that there is no game right now. Tech demo is the best way to describe it, as ssully already said.

Not sure what the other commenter was referring to, but to me it's amusing because Elite: Dangerous is a (somewhat) similar game that followed the opposite path of Star Citizen: They started with an MVP, got that to market and have been gradually expanding on it over time.

> clearly was not paying attention at the time of the crash.

This is the fundamental point that I'm disagreeing with though. As far as I know, Tesla has a very crude system for determining driver attentiveness. They rely ONLY on steering wheel torque, which is an extremely unreliable indicator. They don't do any sort of head or eye tracking. So when Tesla claims a driver wasn't paying attention, all it really means is "we're not sure if their hands were on the wheel".

My car uses the same method, and I constantly get warnings to place my hands on the wheel even when they're both already on the wheel. It's possible to have your hands on the wheel without applying any torque, and that's where this system fails.

> Yet he persisted in both using the system and ignoring the alerts that the system apparently gave him to put his hands on the wheel and take full control.

"Hands not detected" does NOT mean "hands not on wheel".

Tesla relies on driver input (torque) to "detect" hands, which means you could have both hands on the wheel but sill get the warning to place your hands on the wheel.

It seems like most people are assuming it's some kind of magical capacitive system that can detect the slightest hint of contact, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I was considering "pledging" to this game a year or two ago. Luckily I didn't, and it was because the supporters on every SC forum were the most cult-like, rabid fanboys I've ever encountered in the gaming world.

It felt like they were all using the same playbook to respond to any question that could be considered negative. E.g. If you asked about the game being Pay-to-Win, they'd all say "There's no such thing as winning an MMORPG, so it can't be Pay-to-Win", which is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics when literally everything in the game can already be purchased with real money.

There are people who have "invested" over $20,000 in this game. Other people built gaming PCs three years ago specifically to play it, most of which will be woefully inadequate by the time it launches.

I hope someone makes a documentary about this one day. Or maybe that was Chris Roberts' plan all along?